    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUENT
                            ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
                                 AND INNOVATION

                                     OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               December 17, 2025

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 www.govinfo.gov
                               www.cha.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-407                       WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

    LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair      JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia                 Ranking Member
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          NORMA TORRES, California
    STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    MARY MILLER, Illinois
    MIKE CAREY, Ohio

                           Mike Platt, Staff Director
                      Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION

                      STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma, Chairwoman

    MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     NORMA TORRES, California,
                                              Ranking Member
                                         JOSEPH MORELLE, New York

                   Jordan Wilson, Subcommittee Staff Director

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                               Opening Statements

    Chairwoman Stephanie Bice, Representative from the State of
      Oklahoma.......................................................     1
        Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Bice..............     3
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Modernization and
      Innovation Norma Torres, Representative from the State of
      California.....................................................     3
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Norma Torres............     4
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on House Administration Joseph
      Morelle, Representative from the State of New York.............    68
        Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........    69

                                   Witnesses

    Dr. Michael Neblo, professor, The Ohio State Institute for
      Democratic Engagement and Accountability.......................     6
        Prepared statement of Dr. Michael Neblo......................     9
    Mrs. Aubrey Wilson, Director of Global Initiatives, POPVOX
      Foundation.....................................................    22
        Prepared statement of Mrs. Aubrey Wilson.....................    24
    Dr. Beth Simone Noveck, Chief AI Strategist, State of New Jersey.    34
        Prepared statement of Dr. Beth Simone Noveck.................    36
    Mr. Ken Ward, Director of House Digital Services, CAO............    60
        Prepared statement of Mr. Ken Ward...........................    62

                            Questions for the Record

    Mr. Ken Ward answers to submitted questions......................    78
    Mrs. Aubrey Wilson answers to submitted questions................    84
    Michael Neblo and Laura Moses answers to submitted questions.....    96
    Dr. Beth Simone Noveck answers to submitted questions............   100

               THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUENT ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS

                                  ----------

                               December 17, 2025

            Subcommittee on Modernization and Innovation,
                     Committee on House Administration,
                                      House of Representatives,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice
    [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bice, Carey, Torres, and Morelle.
        Staff present: Michael Platt, Staff Director; Rachel
    Collins, General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel;
    Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services, Modernization and
    Innovation; Marian Currinder, Senior Professional Staff;
    Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations; Annemarie Cake,
    Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority
    Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor and
    Director of Outreach; Kwame Newton, Minority Oversight Counsel.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
         SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION, A U.S.
                      REPRESENTATIVE FROM OKLAHOMA

        Chairwoman Bice. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Modernization and Innovation will come to order.
        The title of today's hearing is ``The Future of Constituent
    Engagement with Congress.'' I note that a quorum is present.
        Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
    time. Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain
    open for 5 legislative days so that Members may submit any
    materials they wish to be included therein.
        At the beginning of the 119th Congress, we decided to
    update the Subcommittee's name to the Subcommittee on
    Modernization and Innovation. The behind-the-scenes work of
    closing out recommendations made by the Select Committee on
    Modernization continues, but we also need to look forward and
    determine how we can ensure that House technologies and systems
    continue to evolve instead of getting stuck in time. This is
    where innovation comes into play. Bringing Microsoft Copilot
    into the House community is a great example of how the
    Subcommittee is leaning into this work.
        For the past couple of months, we have worked closely with
    the CAO on a comprehensive plan to provide Copilot licenses and
    targeted training to our House staff. As of today, 150 Member
    offices have licenses, and in January, licenses will be
    available to every Member, Committee, Leadership, and House
    support office. Integrating AI technologies into House
    operations is really a game-changing first step in making the
    House a more efficient and effective institution.
        Constituent engagement, the topic of today's hearing, is
    another area that is ripe for innovation. There are all kinds
    of innovative tools and technologies that we could be using
    right now rather than scrambling to play catch-up later.
        Communicating with our constituents is absolutely essential
    for doing our jobs, the jobs we were elected to do. Assisting
    with casework, responding to questions, and explaining our
    positions on the issues of the day requires interacting with
    our constituents in effective and meaningful ways. As we all
    know, the communications landscape is evolving at a rapid pace,
    and there are now many different ways to engage and share
    information.
        Our constituents are exposed to new technologies daily,
    whether they are scheduling appointments, ordering food, or
    using AI tools that work. The forms of communication they
    encounter outside of Congress are much less common inside of
    Congress. Rather than assume that they will read our letters
    and emails, we should figure out how to meet our constituents
    where they are at today, tomorrow, and into the future. If we
    do not begin to incorporate new and emerging technologies and
    platforms into our constituent outreach strategies, we risk
    losing the ability to effectively connect with the people we
    need to hear from the most.
        For decades, the House has relied on a small number of
    constituent management systems, or CMS, for handling Members'
    constituent engagement and outreach needs. While these systems
    have added different features and upgrades over time, I do not
    think that any of us would call these systems cutting edge.
    That is not at all a criticism as much as it is a reflection of
    the fact that the market here is limited and it lacks the kind
    of competition that is typically needed to spark innovation.
        All of this presents us with a real opportunity to
    reimagine constituent engagement. Members represent vastly
    different districts and constituencies, so maybe a, quote,
    build-your-own system makes more sense than a one-size-fits-
    all. That way Members could choose technologies and platforms
    that best meet the needs of their districts and constituents.
        More options could encourage real innovation, and that is
    really what we want. I am looking forward to learning more
    about public views on the current and future states of
    constituent engagement as well as what other countries and
    States are doing that is innovative and effective. The
    discussion today will help inform the Subcommittee's
    exploration of how the House can innovate to improve how we
    connect with all of the people that we represent.
        I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Torres for the
    purpose of providing an opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]

        PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
              MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION CHAIRWOMAN BICE

        At the beginning of the 119th Congress, we decided to
    update the Subcommittee's name to the Subcommittee on
    Modernization and Innovation. The behind-the-scenes work of
    closing out recommendations made by the Select Committee on
    Modernization continues, but we also need to look forward and
    figure out how to ensure that the House's technologies and
    systems continue to evolve instead of getting stuck in time.
    This is where innovation comes into play. Bringing Microsoft
    Copilot to the House community is a great example of how the
    Subcommittee is leaning into this work.
        For the past couple of months, we have worked closely with
    the CAO on a comprehensive plan to provide Copilot licenses and
    targeted training to House staff. As of today, 150 Member
    offices have licenses and in January, licenses will be
    available to every Member, Committee, Leadership, and House
    support office. Integrating AI technologies into House
    operations is a game-changing first step in making the House a
    more efficient and effective institution.
        Constituent engagement, the topic of today's hearing, is
    another area that is ripe for innovation. There are all kinds
    of innovative tools and technologies that we could be using
    now, rather than scrambling to play catch-up later.
    Communicating with our constituents is absolutely essential for
    doing the jobs we were elected to do. Assisting with casework,
    responding to questions, and explaining our positions on the
    issues of the day requires interacting with our constituents in
    effective and meaningful ways. As we all know, the
    communications landscape is evolving at a rapid pace and there
    are now many different ways to engage and share information.
        Our constituents are exposed to new technologies daily,
    whether they are scheduling appointments, ordering food, or
    using AI tools at work. The forms of communication they
    encounter outside of Congress are much less common inside of
    Congress. Rather than assume they'll read our letters and
    emails, we should figure out how to meet our constituents where
    they are at today, tomorrow, and in the future. If we do not
    begin incorporating new and emerging technologies and platforms
    into our constituent outreach strategies, we risk losing the
    ability to effectively connect with the people we need to hear
    from most.
        For decades, the House has relied on a small number of
    constituent management systems (CMS) for handling Members'
    constituent engagement and outreach needs. While these systems
    have added different features and upgrades over time, I do not
    think any of us would call them ``cutting edge.'' That is not a
    criticism as much as it's a reflection of the fact that the
    market here is very limited and lacks the kind of competition
    that is typically needed to spark innovation.
        All of this presents us with a real opportunity to
    reimagine constituent engagement. Members represent vastly
    different districts and constituencies so maybe a ``build-your-
    own'' system makes more sense than a ``one-size-fits-all''
    system. That way, Members could choose technologies and
    platforms that best meet the needs of their districts and
    constituents. More options could encourage real innovation and
    that is what we want.
        I am looking forward to learning more about public views on
    the current and future states of constituent engagement, as
    well as what other countries and States are doing that is
    innovative and effective. The discussion today will help inform
    the Subcommittee's exploration of how the House can innovate to
    improve how we connect with the people we represent.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NORMA TORRES, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
         SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION, A U.S.
                     REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

        Mrs. Torres. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairwoman
    Bice, and thank you so much to our distinguished witnesses for
    taking the time to share your insights with us today.
        I am glad to be here working together with my colleagues on
    these--and experts on the most fundamental goals of an elected
    Representative. How can we listen to our constituents, and how
    can we build the trust that we need with them?
        I worry that faith in Government is broken. We know that
    too many people feel like their Government fails them, that we
    just simply do not listen to them, that they do not hear from
    us, they do not unders--we do not understand their complicated
    lives, and that whatever we do does not help them with their
    challenges. When they do reach out to us, they feel--will they
    feel heard? I am not sure that that is a true statement. I
    think that at least the constituents in my district want to
    feel that there is a human on the other side representing them.
        I represent a district about an hour east of Los Angeles,
    where Latinos make up more than two-thirds of the population.
    At a time when Americans need to be able to connect with their
    elected Representatives in a straightforward, efficient way,
    the disconnect between Washington and my constituents in the
    Inland Empire can often feel as an uncrossable divide.
        This hearing is an opportunity to confront the reality of
    record low trust in Government and determine how Congress can
    improve its approach to constituent engagement through
    modernization and innovation. What I do believe is that we need
    to meet people where they are. The goal is to create systems
    that make it easier for people to be heard. We need tools to
    better listen, to better hear the American people, and to
    better serve them.
        I must say very loud and clear that a faster system that
    still excludes people is not progress. We need to design tools
    that are accessible, transparent, and responsible to the lived
    experiences of our constituents. These new methods of
    engagement must also protect constituents' privacy and personal
    information when necessary.
        If Congress is serious about strengthening democracy and
    encouraging civic participation, we must build the tools that
    do not just work on paper in Washington, but they actually work
    in our communities. These tools need to work in practice for
    every American who needs to be heard, because when a
    constituent finally takes that step to reach out to their
    Government, that moment matters. How we respond may determine
    whether they ever try again.
        A good example of a broken system--and that is not just
    here in Congress--this year, as of August of this year, we had
    returned over $23 million to our constituents. We can say
    congratulations to my office, to my employees, to the
    caseworkers. I want to look at it as a failure of agencies that
    have failed to respond in a timely manner and a respectful
    manner and have failed to truly hear the needs of that
    constituent. Shouldn't take a Member of Congress to have to
    play lobbyist for our constituents. If they deserve certain
    benefits, they should get them. A system that could help me
    deliver even more money to my constituents is what I am here
    for.
        I am going to turn it back to our chairwoman, and I look
    forward to listening to the conversation today.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Torres follows:]

      PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
               MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION NORMA TORRES

        I am glad to be here working together with my colleagues on
    these--and experts on the most fundamental goals of an elected
    Representative. How can we listen to our constituents, and how
    can we build the trust that we need with them? I worry that
    faith in Government is broken. We know that too many people
    feel like their Government fails them, that we just simply do
    not listen to them, that they do not hear from us, they do not
    understand we do not understand their complicated lives, and
    that whatever we do does not help them with their challenges.
    When they do reach out to us, they feel--will they feel heard?
    I am not sure that that is a true statement. I think that at
    least the constituents in my district want to feel that there
    is a human on the other side representing them.
        I represent a district about an hour east of Los Angeles,
    where Latinos make up more than two-thirds of the population.
    At a time when Americans need to be able to connect with their
    elected Representatives in a straightforward, efficient way,
    the disconnect between Washington and my constituents in the
    Inland Empire can often feel as an uncrossable divide.
        This hearing is an opportunity to confront the reality of
    record low trust in Government and determine how Congress can
    improve its approach to constituent engagement through
    modernization and innovation. What I do believe is that we need
    to meet people where they are. The goal is to create systems
    that make it easier for people to be heard. We need tools to
    better listen, to better hear the American people, and to
    better serve them. I must say very loud and clear that a faster
    system that still excludes people is not progress. We need to
    design tools that are accessible, transparent, and responsible
    to the lived experiences of our constituents. These new methods
    of engagement must also protect constituents' privacy and
    personal information when necessary.
        If Congress is serious about strengthening democracy and
    encouraging civic participation, we must build the tools that
    do not just work on paper in Washington, but they actually work
    in our communities. These tools need to work in practice for
    every American who needs to be heard, because when a
    constituent finally takes that step to reach out to their
    Government, that moment matters. How we respond may determine
    whether they ever try again.
        A good example of a broken system--and that is not just
    here in Congress--this year, as of August of this year, we had
    returned over $23 million to our constituents. We can say
    congratulations to my office, to my employees, to the
    caseworkers. I want to look at it as a failure of agencies that
    have failed to respond in a timely manner and a respectful
    manner and have failed to truly hear the needs of that
    constituent. Shouldn't take a Member of Congress to have to
    play lobbyist for our constituents. If they deserve certain
    benefits, they should get them. A system that could help me
    deliver even more money to my constituents is what I am here
    for.

        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Torres.
        Our first witness is Dr. Michael Neblo, director of the
    Ohio State University Institute for Democratic Engagement and
    Accountability, IDEA, an alumni-endowed professor at Okla--I am
    sorry--at Ohio State University. I have Oklahoma State
    University on the brain. I just graduated a child from there on
    Saturday, so my apologies--at Ohio State University.
        Dr. Neblo has designed ``Deliberative Town Halls'' for the
    U.S. Congress, the Chilean Constitutional Convention, and the
    Australian, Nigerian, and U.K. legislatures. He has further
    projects planned for Malawi, Korea, and the European Parliament
    and Commission.
        Our next witness is Ms. Aubrey Wilson. Aubrey is Director
    of Global Initiatives for the nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization POPVOX Foundation. In this role, she leads the
    Digital Parliaments Project, which is focused on directly
    assisting legislatures around the world in adopting technology
    to improve operations, transparency, and continuity. In recent
    years, this work has had a heavy emphasis on AI, leading Aubrey
    to present AI training to parliamentarians around the world.
        Prior to joining POPVOX, Aubrey served as a deputy staff
    director and director of oversight and modernization for the
    Committee on House Administration. Welcome back.
        Our next witness is Dr. Beth Noveck. Dr. Noveck is the
    chief AI strategist for the State of New Jersey and the founder
    of InnovateUS, which delivers free AI training to States and
    cities across the United States. Her newest book is ``Reboot:
    The Race to Save Democracy with AI,'' that will appear with the
    Yale Press this summer.
        Our final witness is Ken Ward, senior director of House
    Digital Services. Drawing from his Hill experience and computer
    science degree from Georgetown University, Mr. Ward founded
    Fireside 21 in 2007. He led the company for over a decade as it
    deployed a broad scope of constituent products still used by
    House offices today. Mr. Ward returned to the Hill in 2020 and
    has since led a team of technologists to deliver high-impact
    technology products for the House community. Welcome. We are
    glad to have you.
        Thank you to the panel of witnesses for all being with us
    today. Please remember to press the button on the microphone in
    front of you so that the green light is on. When you begin to
    speak, the timer in front of you will turn green, and after 4
    minutes it will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your
    5 minutes have expired, and we would ask you to please kindly
    wrap up.
        At this time, I now recognize Dr. Neblo for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF DR. MICHAEL NEBLO, PROFESSOR, THE OHIO STATE
     INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; MRS.
         AUBREY WILSON, DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL INITIATIVES, POPVOX
    FOUNDATION; DR. BETH SIMONE NOVECK, CHIEF AI STRATEGIST, STATE
      OF NEW JERSEY; AND MR. KEN WARD, DIRECTOR OF HOUSE DIGITAL
                             SERVICES, CAO

                       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEBLO

        Mr. Neblo. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, Members
    of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.
        Our Founders famously established a republic, fearing
    direct democracy would lose sight of the common good. Less
    famously, they feared that if Government were too indirect,
    Congress would lose touch with the common people. They proposed
    capping the number of residents per district. Instead, Congress
    capped the number of districts. Americans today believe
    Congress has lost touch. You represent 280 times the Founders'
    limit. How could you stay in touch?
        This hearing turns that rhetorical question into a real
    question. How could future engagement help you stay in touch?
    How can technology help reconnect Congress to constituents?
        We partnered with this Committee and the House Digital
    Services on a survey of 1,000 citizens to find answers. At
    best, only one in five contacted their Member last year. What
    about the other four? Their silence does not mean they are
    satisfied because only 13 percent trust Congress to do what is
    right. Are they apathetic? No. The vast majority are
    frustrated. They are frustrated because they believe Congress
    does not care what people like them think and only listens to
    organized interests and party activists, so they see no reason
    to engage.
        We have worked with enough offices to know Members care
    very much. As average citizens withdraw, however, only
    organized interests and party activists remain to tell Congress
    what they want. We have fallen into a self-reenforcing cycle.
        There is good news. Governments around the world have used
    new approaches in technology to engage citizens in meaningful
    two-way communication. We could easily adapt them, and citizens
    are eager to try.
        Unlike apathy, frustration creates energy for change. Only
    9 percent of our survey respondents said they would not be
    willing to engage if they were invited to what they thought was
    an authentic and consequential forum. Our research shows that
    is not cheap talk. When we invite ordinary constituents to
    online deliberative town halls, previously disengaged citizens
    prepare, show up, and contribute more than those who already
    call your office. They find the forums so transformative that
    94 percent say they are, quote, very valuable for our democracy
    and they want to participate in more.
        Think about that. In an era when only 13 percent of
    citizens trust Congress, you can create spaces where 94 percent
    of citizens say the experience is so worthwhile they would do
    it again. That 81-percent gap tells us everything about what is
    possible.
        Participating Members and staff have also found the forums
    valuable but simply lack the time and resources for ongoing
    deliberation. Yet in our surveys, citizens rated such forums as
    the most legitimate and effective way to communicate. Mass
    emails and social media scored lower, and at the bottom, 80
    percent of citizens told us that AI chatbots were not
    acceptable for matters of substance.
        This finding is crucial. AI can transform how staff manage
    the deluge of routine requests. It is a deluge. Unless we use
    the freed up time the right way, AI will not dent the core
    problem. A customer service model makes sense for many
    important constituent service tasks: scheduling Capitol tours,
    tallying issue sentiments from correspondents, et cetera.
        Think about what customer service implies about
    representative Government. You own the company, and citizens
    can take or leave what you are selling. An office could have
    stellar customer service and constituents will still find that
    problematic. Lobbyists might be clients of Congress, but
    citizens want to be partners in self-government. I know that
    most Members want to be such partners too.
        Engagement that treats them like partners produces lasting
    gains in their political knowledge, trust, voting rate,
    civility, and willingness to work together. These patterns hold
    in forums with over 7,000 citizens. Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Timmons'
    national forum with the predecessor to this Committee rolled
    back 38 years worth of rising partisan animosity, the largest
    decline in polarization ever documented.
        Citizens also reward and encourage legislative expertise
    and collegiality in these formats. We have had similar success
    with official forums as part of the Chilean Constitutional
    Convention, the Good Friday Accords in Northern Ireland, and
    many others, with several more projects planned.
        Citizens are so frustrated with representative democracy
    that they are prepared to work around it through referenda and
    the like, and an alarming number are now willing to consider
    alternatives to democracy itself. Like our Founders, the vast
    majority would rather work with and through their
    Representatives--that is, if we reimagine what that entails.
        I am so grateful for this opportunity to testify because I
    believe the future of American democracy depends much more than
    we realize on the future of constituent engagement. The
    technology exists, the models are proven, your constituents are
    ready and waiting if you are ready to meet them. I know that
    all of us on this panel stand ready to help you do that.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Neblo follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEBLO
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Neblo.
        I now recognize Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF AUBREY WILSON

        Ms. Wilson. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    be part of today's hearing. I am Aubrey Wilson, director of
    global initiatives at POPVOX Foundation and, as previously
    stated, a former House staffer, had the immense pleasure of
    working for the Committee on House Administration during the
    117th and 118th Congresses.
        At POPVOX, our mission is to help democratic institutions
    keep pace in a rapidly changing world. The majority of our team
    are prior congressional staffers, but our love for legislative
    institutions has expanded, leading us to work directly with
    parliaments around the world to transform their internal
    operations, helping them leapfrog from paper to cutting edge.
        Over the last 2 years, much of our work has focused on
    legislatures' adoption of AI, specifically as it relates to
    improving internal operations. I have been asked to share
    international examples of how emerging technologies improving
    constituent engagement in ways that could benefit Congress.
        Chatbots represent one of the lowest hanging fruit. They
    are familiar to users, quickly deployable, and capable of
    providing 24/7 assistance regardless of users' age, language,
    or education level. Estonia has developed two AI legislative
    systems for MPs and staff that search through parliamentary
    legislative data bases to find information about current laws,
    legislative proposals, and amendments. While not currently
    public facing, these chatbots are a model for how constituents
    might one day be able to interact with data on Congress.gov to
    understand which bills have been introduced and how those laws
    may affect them.
        Estonia has also launched a public-facing chat interface
    through which citizens are able to access services across 18
    agencies. Through this one point of service they can file
    consumer complaints, apply for permits, renew ID cards, report
    car accidents, and even borrow library books.
        This vision of constituent engagement transcends the
    legislative branch by imagining Government as an integrated
    service provider that could support individuals in navigating
    our complex ecosystem of Federal agencies in any language at
    any time.
        Beyond streamlining access to information is enabling two-
    way interaction. Brazil's Ulysses Suite empowers constituents
    to leave detailed remarks about legislation via online poll. AI
    then groups and analyzes this broad public input and presents
    it back to policymakers, giving constituents meaningful
    participation while equipping legislators with actionable
    insights.
        AI can also foster quality constituent interactions at
    scale. In 2024, Remesh, which is a U.S.-based company,
    facilitated an AI-assisted community dialog between the major
    social groups in Gaza. The insights from this were aggregated
    into informative data for international negotiators and went in
    the ongoing peace process.
        These examples, along with the additional ones included in
    my written testimony, show what is possible. They also
    demonstrate that legislatures do not have to accept the all too
    common public perception that they are slow to innovate. With
    441 lawmakers with diverse backgrounds and expertise, the House
    is already witnessing the deployment of technology in new ways
    by Members and staff to engage with their constituents. The
    Congressional Hackathon, House Digital Service, modernization
    initiatives account, and Congressional Data Task Force
    exemplify the resources available that institutionalize
    innovation.
        The House has all the inspirational components it needs,
    but it must go beyond one-off initiatives by adopting a new way
    of doing things that allows ongoing experimentation, learning,
    and refinement. As the Subcommittee evaluates next steps for
    institutional modernization, we encourage you to partner with
    the CAO to reform House IT procurement and introduce
    transparency.
        While few tools are built specifically for legislative use,
    a vibrant marketplace of tools that can be used in Congress
    exists. If other institutions share open-sourced models, the
    selection of customizable legislative tools will also expand.
    Members who identify promising tools need a clear pathway for
    institutional approval. This Subcommittee in partnership with
    the CAO has a wide spectrum of potential approaches to support
    responsible innovation.
        For instance, the Subcommittee can support the CAO in
    exploring new contracting vehicles. It can work with CAO to
    establish rapid-pilot authorities and provide guardrails on
    low-risk, no- or low-code experiments. It can champion
    innovative projects like House Digital Services' amazing data
    lake and innovation sandboxes where Members can test new tools
    before institution-wide deployment.
        Together, additionally, the Subcommittee and CAO must
    prioritize the establishment of robust but expedient
    cybersecurity review processes. A 1-year authorization
    timelines for new tools is incompatible with 2-year election
    cycles.
        Finally, building off of Catherine Szpindor's legacy, the
    next CAO needs to be ready to work hand-in-hand with the
    Subcommittee to usher in the next era of House innovation by
    identifying actionable solutions that empower Members to pilot,
    experiment, and reimagine how new tools can serve constituents.
        Around the world, legislatures are experimenting with
    emerging technologies, deploying new tools, and learning from
    each other about new approaches for the future of constituent
    engagement. The House can benefit from this innovation but only
    when it has adopted the internal processes to institutionalize
    new ways of doing things.
        Thank you for being leaders in this conversation, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUBREY WILSON
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
        I now recognize Dr. Beth Noveck for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF BETH SIMONE NOVECK

        Ms. Noveck. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, Members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today.
        It is precisely at this moment when Congress is most
    overworked, when the issues are getting ever more complex. The
    Committee staff are roughly 40 percent smaller than they were
    in 1980, when the support agencies, CRS and GAO and CBO, they
    have shrunk 45 percent in the last generation. Public
    engagement at this point really can sound like an unreasonable
    burden. Frankly, it is hard enough to field more than 81
    million calls coming into Congress every year from
    constituents.
        Historically--let us be realistic--meaningful participation
    has been too expensive. It has been too time-consuming, and it
    has really lacked the structure that has made public
    contributions useful for institutions. The web has made it
    easier for everybody to talk, but that does not mean it has
    made it easier for our institutions in our democracy to listen.
        In the State of New Jersey, what we have learned is that
    pairing the right artificial intelligence tools today with a
    disciplined process with the right design can actually make it
    possible for Government institutions both to serve residents
    better, to deliver services, but also to listen and to govern,
    not only faster and more efficiently, but also more
    inclusively, even at scale.
        There are two recommendations that are outstanding, 176 and
    174, from this Subcommittee that provide a practical starting
    point for what we might do and for that transformation.
        176 calls for exploring ways to solicit public input for
    Committee hearings. Long before Generative AI, Brazil's Senate,
    larger than our own, began inviting residents to submit
    questions for Committee hearings both by phone and on the web.
    Today, the Brazilian Senate has been integrating AI tools that
    are helping staff de-duplicate comments, cluster similar
    questions, and highlight those that directly are relevant to a
    Committee's oversight goals. Participation has been
    substantial: 46,000 questions across 546 hearings in 2023, and
    69,000 questions across 440 hearings in 2024. Public input has
    become so routine that the staff report to me that when they do
    not get it in fast enough, the senators call them and say,
    Where is my list of questions?
        This Subcommittee could begin testing recommendation 176
    through a simple, low-risk pilot conducted over the course of a
    few hearings that invite the public to submit questions. But,
    look, until recently, the idea of putting up an open text box
    on the web and say ``comment here,'' this was really an
    impractical idea. AI now makes it straightforward to gather
    that feedback, not just by text but by voice, to remove
    duplicates, to filter off-topic comments, to cluster questions
    into themes, and to synthesize learnings.
        I outline the specifics of this process in the written
    remarks. Let me just add that my students in a program we call
    ``AI for Impact'' that we teach through Northeastern University
    and our community college system in New Jersey, they are
    embedded full time with Government partners, they just built a
    tool, a free open-source tool called Open Feedback, which is
    being deployed at scale by the city of Boston. Residents can
    submit feedback in natural language, and the AI assistant
    responds with clarifying questions to improve the submission.
    The tool allows staff to organize comments by topic, to analyze
    patterns, and to route issues to the right department for
    faster feedback.
        The next AI for Impact co-op starts--cohort--excuse me--
    begins in January, and we would be happy to adapt this tool for
    your use and to be of use.
        Through InnovateUS, the free, nonpartisan, nonprofit, peer-
    to-peer training program that I founded, where Government
    professionals teach one another how to use AI and where we have
    trained 150,000 people around the country now in using AI to
    serve the public, we are learning from jurisdictions around the
    country, from the Engaged California project, from the Bowling
    Green engagement project, from work we have done in New Jersey
    and around the world, about how different jurisdictions are
    using AI to do engagement at scale. We are turning those
    learnings into a training which we will be happy to provide on
    how to effectively use AI for public engagement.
        Of course, there are risks, and Congress must guard against
    hallucinations by ensuring that we are using AI to sort and to
    organize and not to make decisions. The greater risk is, of
    course, that we engage in ineffective or performative
    engagement that is disconnected from real decision-making.
    These pilots, they create an opportunity, a practical and
    immediate way to tap the expertise and the lived and
    credentialed experience of the American public to strengthen
    lawmaking, to strengthen oversight. To quote Michael, we all
    stand at the ready to assist.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Noveck follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH SIMONE NOVECK
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Noveck.
        Just a bit of housekeeping. You probably heard the bells.
    House votes have been called. We will go ahead and finish
    opening statements, along with the opening statement from
    Ranking Member Morelle of the full Committee. Then we will take
    a brief pause for Members to go vote, and then we will return.
        At this time, I recognize--Mr. Ward, you are recognized for
    5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF KEN WARD

        Mr. Ward. Good morning. Thank you for inviting the Chief
    Administrative Office to participate in today's hearing. I am
    joined by our CAO, Catherine Szpindor; our chief information
    officer, Jamie Crotts; our chief digital officer, Bob Barrett;
    and our deputy chief information security officer, Addie
    Adeniji.
        Personally, I have spent my entire career in and around the
    legislative branch. I worked in a Member office. I founded the
    citizen engagement software company Fireside 21, and I served
    as CEO for 10 years. I have spent the last 5 years here at the
    CAO and lead our House Digital Service. I have had a front row
    seat to see how technology has changed and impacted Member
    offices.
        The era dominated by landlines and letters is certainly
    over, and today, citizens and advocacy groups are already
    leveraging AI to reach and influence Congress. Here in the
    House, the CAO has been bringing new methodologies and
    technologies online: human-centered design practices, business
    automation, cloud integration, and responsible AI, just to name
    a few.
        These innovations bring new possibilities for our products
    and services, and today, we are sharing a new vision to help
    Members and their staff improve constituent engagement while
    continuing to ensure the privacy and security of the sensitive
    data.
        In the unique environment of the House, the nonpartisan CAO
    plays the role of both innovator and host when it comes to
    innovation. As an innovator, we build and maintain custom
    applications, like the Communicating with Congress API, e-Dear
    Colleague System, House Cal, LegiDex, and Quill. Over the past
    several years, in large part because of this Subcommittee and
    the previous Select Committee on Modernization, the House has
    advanced constituent-focused technology as well. We launched
    FlagTrack, which helps offices manage flag requests from
    constituents, and we are piloting Case Compass, an initiative
    to aggregate and analyze casework to help Members better
    understand trends and conduct oversight of the executive
    branch.
        In our other role as host to innovation, the CAO
    facilitates access to commercial technologies, like office
    productivity suites, photo and video editing software,
    collaboration tools, and correspondence management systems, the
    CMS systems your offices use daily.
        The current contract structure for CMS is designed so every
    Member's constituent data resides within one of a few
    proprietary systems, and now this design is limiting our
    innovation because other vendors cannot access your data to
    provide new or improved services. To be clear, we are not
    blaming CMS vendors. They are all operating within the
    framework that the House has required for several decades that
    ensures the protection of your data. However, with recent
    advancements in secure storage and computing technologies, the
    House can and should explore making changes that could spur
    Members' access to more innovation, most notably, by changing
    the way constituent data is stored and accessed.
        As you know, we have proposed creating a secure, House-
    controlled constituent data lake for each Member that can be
    leveraged by multiple House and vendor applications if and as
    authorized by each Member.
        In short, your constituent data would be hosted in a way
    that gives you control over who can securely access your
    office's data, and that shared access will allow you to pick
    from a variety of vendors, offering a range of constituent
    engagement services. This concept will open the door to new
    technologies and greater interoperability with existing House
    applications.
        Just this past September, over 20 innovators pitched new
    Congress-specific applications at the Congressional Hackathon.
    Presenters shared tools that use AI to identify constituent
    sentiment, automate sorting, and show real-time analytics. A
    data lake would help bring these new innovations to Congress
    and provide opportunities to enhance numerous other internal
    applications. For example, you can imagine receiving an eDear
    Colleague and that invitation to cosponsor a new bill already
    having data from your citizens who support and oppose that
    bill.
        We think our issue is not a lack of innovation. It is just
    an access to this innovation. Migrating to a House-controlled
    data lake will require a multiyear investment. However, our
    iterative approach will not only validate ongoing investment
    but also deliver new capabilities along the way, new
    capabilities that will be available to all Member offices
    without the need to switch your CMS.
        If done correctly, building a data platform that focuses on
    security, governance, users, and constituents, the House will
    spur both internal and external innovation in constituent
    engagement. It is a future where Members are more empowered
    with a wider range of options to best serve and interact with
    the American public.
        Again, thank you for today's invitation, and happy to
    answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEN WARD
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
        Thank you to all the panelists for those opening
    statements.
        At this time, I am going to recognize Ranking Member of the
    full Committee on House Administration, Mr. Morelle, for an
    opening statement.
        Mr. Morelle.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                                NEW YORK

        Mr. Morelle. Thank you. I will be very brief given that we
    have votes. I appreciate the witnesses for being here on a
    really important subject, and certainly to you, Madam Chair,
    for your continued good work in helping to modernize Congress,
    and certainly to my friend, Ranking Member Torres, as well for
    your leadership.
        I do want to acknowledge Catherine Szpindor who is retiring
    in the next few days and thank her for her long service to the
    Congress. We are very, very grateful. Wish her the very best as
    she transitions to the next phase of her life.
        I also just want to acknowledge Mike Carey who keeps adding
    layers of clothing because it is so damn cold on that side of
    the room, and the House Administration Committee ought to do
    something about it.
        In a serious mode, I think of, as I was thinking about this
    in my head, how constituents engage with Congress. I am sure
    there are many different buckets, but the four that I am
    particularly interested in--one is just access to information
    about Congress, what bills are happening, making it easy to
    access that so it is not as bewildering as it may seem to
    people.
        The second is sort of the interaction with Members,
    engaging us in terms of providing perspective on issues before
    the House, issues before the country, what they think we ought
    to be doing, and for us to be able to engage with constituents.
    That interaction is very important.
        Then the last two are related. One is access to Government
    services. How do people know how to connect with all the things
    that we offer, both Federal, State, local?
        Then the final, which is related and adjacent, but it is
    access to community services. How do I know--if I am suddenly
    in crisis, how do I know to engage? I think many times when we
    do constituent services, people reaching out because they are
    entering into a system that is, to them, bewildering.
        At a time when we have clearly lost the faith and
    confidence of the American people institutionally as
    Government, that last--those last two buckets may be, in some
    ways, the most important just because as people are in crisis,
    our family members are in crisis, how do they engage? I have
    some real thoughts on that.
        The introduction of AI clearly is critical, and I would
    love to learn more about it. I will admit, many websites I go
    to where I am doing a chatbot, and it is clearly a chat
    assistance, I find incredibly frustrating. I do not feel like--
    I feel like I might as well read the frequently asked questions
    because there is no other engagement other than the frequently
    asked questions being regurgitated to me. That will get better.
    Clearly, having humans engaged in this is going to be a big
    deal. I appreciate all of what you have to say, and I am
    looking forward to, after votes, coming back and engaging
    again.
        Madam Chair, thanks for giving me the opportunity to say a
    few words.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

    PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                     ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

        I do want to acknowledge Catherine Szpindor who is retiring
    in the next few days and thank her for her long service to the
    Congress. We are very, very grateful. Wish her the very best as
    she transitions to the next phase of her life. I also just want
    to acknowledge Mike Carey who keeps adding layers of clothing
    because it is so damn cold on that side of the room, and the
    House Administration Committee ought to do something about it.
        In a serious mode, I think of, as I was thinking about this
    in my head, how constituents engage with Congress. I am sure
    there are many different buckets, but the four that I am
    particularly interested in--one is just access to information
    about Congress, what bills are happening, making it easy to
    access that so it is not as bewildering as it may seem to
    people.
        The second is sort of the interaction with Members,
    engaging us in terms of providing perspective on issues before
    the House, issues before the country, what they think we ought
    to be doing, and for us to be able to engage with constituents.
    That interaction is very important. Then the last two are
    related. One is access to Government services. How do people
    know how to connect with all the things that we offer, both
    Federal, State, local? Then the final, which is related and
    adjacent, but it is access to community services. How do I
    know--if I am suddenly in crisis, how do I know to engage? I
    think many times when we do constituent services, people
    reaching out because they are entering into a system that is,
    to them, bewildering. At a time when we have clearly lost the
    faith and confidence of the American people institutionally as
    Government, that last--those last two buckets may be, in some
    ways, the most important just because as people are in crisis,
    our family members are in crisis, how do they engage? I have
    some real thoughts on that.
        The introduction of AI clearly is critical, and I would
    love to learn more about it. I will admit, many websites I go
    to where I am doing a chatbot, and it is clearly a chat
    assistance, I find incredibly frustrating. I do not feel like--
    I feel like I might as well read the frequently asked questions
    because there is no other engagement other than the frequently
    asked questions being regurgitated to me. That will get better.
    Clearly, having humans engaged in this is going to be a big
    deal.

        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle.
        I want to second the comments that you made about Catherine
    Szpindor and her departure from the CAO. It has been a joy and
    pleasure working with the entire CAO staff but particularly
    Catherine on these endeavors. Your presence will be noted as
    you depart for greener pastures potentially.
        With that, we are going to take a recess of the
    Subcommittee, and we will return upon the conclusion of votes.
        The Subcommittee will now come to order.
        We will now move to questions for the witnesses, beginning
    with me, followed by the Ranking Member Torres, Mr. Carey, and
    Mr. Morelle. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions,
    so I ask to please keep your responses concise. I now recognize
    myself for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.
        First of all, thank you for the very insightful testimony.
    I think that we can agree that AI is certainly becoming a
    useable tool as we look to improve constituent engagement
    across the House.
        My first question, though--and this may be more for Dr.
    Noveck or Mr. Ward--is, how do you build a platform that would
    be useful as an AI tool, for example, using a chatbot, that
    could actually give responses that are going to be accurate
    and/or make sense? Are you looking at building some sort of
    customized element to actually interact with the House website?
        Second, how could you ensure that the responses that are
    being given are going to be customized to each office? Because,
    for example, Mrs. Torres and I may have a different perspective
    on an ag issue. Can you talk a little bit about how you might
    do that?
        Ms. Noveck. No red light on my end.
        I--thank you for the question. I think one of the things
    that we have done in New Jersey, first of all, and that we have
    done through our work building tools for other States as well
    is to start with internal-facing chatbots. I think it is really
    important to recognize that these tools are extremely good for
    synthesizing information and that is what has made it possible
    to do things like train an AI tool on a specific corpus of
    documents.
        That would mean a Member could--and it is something, by the
    way, that together with POPVOX, the AI for Impact program built
    the first and tested the first chatbot for a Member, where we
    loaded it with all of that Member's position statements, bill
    drafts, et cetera. Then--the tools are getting much better at
    restricting responses only to what is on--what is in that
    corpus of knowledge. That is one way to avoid the hallucination
    problem, No. 1.
        No. 2, internal-facing tools, so that what you are doing is
    giving staff a tool that they can use to quickly give answers
    to people. In New Jersey, for example, we are not using
    chatbots to answer constituent calls. You are not getting, you
    know, a machine. What you are getting is a human who in turn
    has a good lookup tool on their end that is allowing them to
    synthesize a lot of information. I think the best place to
    start is with those tools for the people answering the phone,
    to make their jobs easier. The tools are allowing us to get
    better, especially when you train them to restrict their
    answers to a specific corpus of knowledge. That is also what
    has allowed us in New Jersey to bring down the time it takes to
    answer a call from 40 minutes to now 3 minutes and modernize
    all of our call centers using some of these practices.
        Chairwoman Bice. Fantastic. Would you like to add anything,
    Mr. Ward?
        Mr. Ward. I would just echo that. I think we have a lot of
    opportunities here internally for those chatbots. There is a
    use case where staff is trying to find House operational
    information; that could be on HouseNet. There is the data that
    is private to your office; that could be a different chatbot.
    There is data in your CMS; that could be a separate chatbot. It
    is just about structuring data the right way to enable those
    services.
        Chairwoman Bice. Perfect. Thank you.
        Dr. Neblo, I want to pivot to you. Your testimony
    highlighted the mismatch between public frustration and
    Congress' current engagement methods. What specific
    institutional reforms would help bridge this gap and make
    constituent input more actionable for Members?
        Mr. Neblo. Thank you. That is a--that is a great question.
        At the Institute so far, we have had a relatively small set
    that we have implemented and have hard evidence on. I try to
    follow a kind of political science Hippocratic oath, so I will
    separate a little bit between what I have firsthand, you know,
    scientific evidence about and then some other ideas that we do
    not have as much backing on.
        Deliberative town halls, we have done, I forget how many
    now, and none have gone badly. There is some----
        Chairwoman Bice. Define ``gone badly.''
        Mr. Neblo. OK. Define--that is a great question. In no--in
    no case has a Member not gained trust approval, voting rates,
    voting for the Member rates. Now, in some cases it is small. In
    other cases it is eye-popping. Gone wrong would be the Member
    stuck their neck out, tried something new, and it hurt them in
    the eyes of their constituents. That is how I would define it.
    That has not happened once.
        Chairwoman Bice. How do you ensure--with a particular
    platform that you are utilizing, is it--are you able to ensure
    that the individuals that you are connecting with are
    constituents of that particular Member?
        Mr. Neblo. Yes. That is one of the really nice things about
    doing the online town halls and doing them by invitation. In
    principle, somebody that we give the invitation to and have the
    verified link could give it to somebody else but not be on at
    the same time themselves, right. There is a little shadow of a
    possibility once in a while, but we have reason to think that
    we are talking about tiny numbers, maybe no one, on that.
        The results are really quite large. Your predecessors on
    the Select Committee did a joint bipartisan town hall, and 2
    weeks after it, affective polarization, dislike of the out
    party relative to the in party, was as if 38 years ago. Thirty-
    eight--I mean, that--over 100 studies have been published
    trying to lower affective polarization. This is the largest
    one. Most of the other large ones, you cannot talk about
    politics. We need to learn how to talk about politics.
        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you very much, Dr. Neblo. I
    appreciate that.
        I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Torres, for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you again. I am really excited to hear
    more about this developing technology. Certainly, you know, the
    in-person town halls have caused a lot of security concerns.
    They require law enforcement presence, security presence, not
    just for the Member but for the attendees. To be able to have a
    conversation with constituents, for me it has been a lot more
    work because that means that we have to limit information to
    maybe 120 people in a smaller setting or we do a lot more
    roundtable discussions with 30, 40 people versus doing a town
    hall that can bring in, you know, 4-, 600 people. I look
    forward to continue and to hear more about that.
        On the issue of securing data, I think we--you and I talked
    a little bit, Mr. Ward, about some of my concerns that I have.
    We have a lot of casework that is open. Some of it is 10 years
    old. It takes that long to get some of the cases completed. I
    want to be able to, when a constituent calls my office, for
    anyone in the office to be able to respond to that constituent
    so that constituent do not have to wait for the caseworker
    assigned to their individual case to get a response. You know,
    we are still researching your information. We are still waiting
    for the agency to reply to us. We cannot check back in for
    another 3 or 4 days.
        How do I ensure that anyone who answers the call in my
    office, in any one of my offices--and many times, they are
    interns answering the phone--has some data available that they
    can immediately respond to that caller but not be able to see
    specific data, such as a Social Security or identifiable
    information for that constituent?
        Mr. Ward. OK. Well, a couple things. I think, you know,
    with what we are proposing, one of the benefits of what we are
    proposing is to be able to have governance that is specific to
    different parts of that data. We are not certainly proposing
    taking all this data and putting it in a large language model,
    for example. With a data lake, you can have different settings
    and different governance on different segments of data and
    sharing, similarly, you know, what people can see. Now, that
    will require some integration with the service providers, make
    sure that there is integration there. That is very feasible.
        There is also potential to have more self-service
    capabilities for citizens. They can go to a portal and access
    the status as well.
        Mrs. Torres. The constituent----
        Mr. Ward. Correct.
        Mrs. Torres [continuing]. themselves. OK. Where they would
    be able to input their personal data so the bot or the
    computer--the system knows that it is responding to the correct
    person.
        Mr. Ward. That is right. They would have to authenticate
    into the system. But, you know, for example, with our FlagTrack
    product, a little--much different, but we are proposing
    expanding that so citizens can, you know, self-service checking
    the status of those orders. Something similar could exist for
    casework.
        Mrs. Torres. Right. Nearly one in three working Americans
    have very little digital skills. We learned the hard way about
    this when the VA made a change requiring digital IDs instead of
    ID cards. My office had created a system that we could go to
    any location and be able to get a constituent a real ID that
    they can carry in their pocket, that they can show for their
    benefits and other public benefits--public and private benefits
    that are available to them. You know, we have to create systems
    that do not shut them out completely.
        Outside of going out and training our constituents on how
    to create a screen name or, you know, an email address, how do
    you propose that we jump through some of these hoops that are
    also challenges?
        Ms. Noveck, you seem to really be involved in the
    constituency part of this.
        Ms. Noveck. We have rolled out a program that we call our
    Civic AI training program. It works via WhatsApp in multiple
    languages that was designed to teach people what AI is but how
    to use it to engage and interact with Government. It is
    specifically for that purpose. We designed it, actually, with
    families in California, in fact, as part of a program where we
    co-designed together with those families tools using AI to help
    understand their child's individualized education program, the
    document you get from Government, the 100-page PDF you get
    about the services to which you are entitled when your child
    has a--is differently-abled.
        We believe that citizens are smart. They want to learn.
    They are capable of not just understanding what these tools are
    but helping to build them. That is why we are rolling out via
    the mobile phone multilingual support in--free--in how to use
    AI to interact with----
        Mrs. Torres. What is the program called?
        Ms. Noveck. Sorry. Civic AI.
        Mrs. Torres. Civic AI. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        At this time, I recognize Representative Carey for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Carey. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair and the
    Ranking Member.
        Doctor, I am going to start with you. Of course, knowing
    where you are from, I have to start off with OH. All right. We
    all know that the public trust in Congress is much lower than
    we would like it to be, and that continues to be a cause of
    concern. I was struck by the survey finding that 70 percent of
    respondents are willing to engage more directly with elected
    officials on important issues. Now, to me, that is a positive
    sign.
        Now, you mentioned deliberative town halls as an effective
    form of two-way engagement. At this time, could you talk maybe
    a little bit more how those might work?
        Mr. Neblo. Sure. Thank you for the opportunity.
        The real difference in--there are a few differences in
    deliberative town halls. One of them is that, as if we were
    doing a survey, we try to get a real random sample of the
    entire constituency and affirmatively and personally invite
    them. It turns out that it could seem like there is a
    contradiction, citizens saying they do not think Members care
    what they think and yet, you know, they want to engage, right.
    The distinction is that when the Member affirmatively reaches
    out and says, No, really, I want to hear what you have to say,
    how does Tuesday at 7 sound? The citizen says, Oh, OK, they are
    one of the good ones.
        It is very, very fragile, very, very easy to get them to
    believe that you do care. That is where the apathy/frustration
    difference is really important. Affirmatively inviting a very
    broad sample.
        The broad sample also tremendously alters the dynamics.
    Your average constituent does not want to yell at you. Your
    average constituent has not even necessarily made up his or her
    mind on the issue. They are not there to necessarily give you a
    piece of their mind. They want to hear what you have to say
    before making up their mind, which is why this interactive
    dialog is so valuable. You get to hear from them about their
    concerns, their values, their questions. They actually want to
    hear from you too, right.
        We do a survey beforehand. These are real field
    experiments. There is also a control group that we survey.
    People attend. Then there is a survey usually about 2 weeks
    later of everybody again. The forums are online on a secure
    platform. We are building a bespoke platform. It is very, very
    easy to use, will be linked to the 14 most spoken languages in
    the United States. My grandfather was illiterate. You know, we
    have oral versions. We have real-time captioning for the
    hearing impaired. We are very serious about trying to really--
    any enfranchised citizen should be able to talk to their Member
    of Congress.
        Mr. Carey. I appreciate that. I am going to be cutting
    short on time here.
        Now, there is, of course--I mean, you have seen this, you
    have all seen this in the press, there is a real concern about
    Member safety. You know, I think that we on this Committee on
    House Admin work very hard to increase the security budget of
    most of our Members. Like many Members, we have had death
    threats. We now have to have a security detail, which we never
    thought we would have to have before.
        In the two-way communication forums, are there effective
    ways--I know you only have a minute--to take down the
    temperature from the onset of those forums?
        Mr. Neblo. That is really one of the most extraordinary
    things that we found, is that when you get a random sample--as
    I said, your average constituent does not want to yell at you.
    They do not want to throw bombs.
        Very quickly. We had a provision in the first very study we
    did, an NSF-funded project built these. If a question or
    comment was considered abusive, inciting, or vulgar, we had to
    pull it out. Over 1,400 questions submitted in the first round
    that we did. Zero. Not once did we have to pull it out. That
    tells you the difference of the--of the people who are the
    frequent flyers--and some of them are great. They are active
    citizens. We have got to represent them too--or you have to
    represent them too.
        The random sampling helps a lot. Online helps a lot.
    Moderation helps a lot. They look around--even people who might
    be inclined look around, and their fellow citizens are being
    civil and behaving, or the Members are treating each other with
    dignity.
        Mr. Carey. Doctor, I want to thank you for your time.
        Chair, with that, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
        At this time, we do have time for a second round of
    questions. I will recognize myself for an additional 5 minutes
    of questions.
        Ms. Wilson, I want to direct this to you. You have worked
    with legislatures around the world. What lessons from global
    experiments with AI do you think that Congress can uniquely
    position--is uniquely positioned to maybe adopt?
        Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much for these questions.
        I will start by saying that our work with international
    legislatures has actually been an extremely eye-opening
    experience, especially as a prior congressional staffer. I
    think that I took for granted the incredibly robust IT
    infrastructure and all of the benefits that this body has. I
    think that that is in itself a lesson to learn from.
        A lot of the legislatures that we work with, the way that
    they are implementing AI is to rapidly modernize their internal
    processes in the practice, which is digitizing documents,
    making data accessible, getting up-to-date websites, things
    that we really do take for granted, I think, as a U.S.
    Congress. That really, I think, showcases that the fact that
    the U.S. Congress already has such a strong IT foundation lets
    you kind of build on top of that.
        While other countries are using AI to kind of build that
    foundation, we actually have the ability to experiment and to
    be the people who do design the future of constituent
    engagement. I would say that that is kind of the first--the
    first element.
        The second element is one of the biggest kind of difference
    makers with international institutions that I have been able to
    kind of move more agilely is having internal processes that
    allow them to test and experiment and adopt new tools. A lot of
    that comes back down to kind of your internal authorization and
    security protocols. With that, having kind of a tiered system
    has really helped kind of expedite the ability for new tools to
    be tested that are low risk and be more quickly adopted so that
    then they can be implemented and staff and Members can start
    benefiting from them.
        Chairwoman Bice. That was an incredible segue into my next
    question to the panelists, so thank you for that.
        There is a couple things that we think about when we are
    trying to launch new technology within the House. Specifically,
    cybersecurity becomes a big topic of conversation. I think
    the--for the panel, I would ask you all, you know, there are
    rigorous standards to become a vendor for the House. Some of
    the individuals that want to partner with us may have their
    particular platform rejected for a variety of reasons.
        This is going to be a couple of--maybe parts of a question.
    One, is there a way for us to speed up that approval process?
    Two, are the individuals, the vendors that are wanting to
    partner with us, are they able to know and learn why they may
    have been denied? What should we be thinking about as a
    Committee to try to help improve the process and/or the
    recruitment of vendors that potentially have innovative
    technologies that the House could be utilizing? It is a lot,
    but I will throw it open to anyone who wishes to answer.
        Mr. Ward and Dr. Noveck seem to be looking at each other.
        Mr. Ward. We have a number of different processes that
    depend a little bit on what the technology is. For example,
    with CMS, there is a specific process for that, and there is
    other processes for other cloud services.
        Chairwoman Bice. Can I ask a question on that? How often is
    the process reviewed, would you say?
        Mr. Ward. Well, the CMS contract is, you know, typically
    issued for like a 6-year term with option years, but every
    option period, every 2-year option period it is reviewed. The
    cloud approval process we are always kind of looking at. That
    is a House information security policy of the Committee. There
    is work underway now, I think you are aware of, in
    collaboration with your staff to look at that.
        You mentioned two things that I think will be realized in
    the new year, which is more information on House.gov for
    vendors, more information on HouseNet for staff to understand
    those processes. What we propose with the CMS modernization is
    a part of a larger puzzle of doing business with the House that
    we want to improve.
        Chairwoman Bice. Dr. Noveck.
        Ms. Noveck. I am happy to take offline the question of how
    we streamline that process in New Jersey for making it faster
    for vendors.
        Let me just speak to the public engagement pilot idea. This
    is not something that needs to integrate with core systems, and
    therefore it should be something that is easy to try
    effectively tomorrow----
        Chairwoman Bice. A standalone.
        Ms. Noveck. Sorry?
        Chairwoman Bice. It is a standalone.
        Ms. Noveck. One can do something in a sandboxed environment
    that is a standalone that allows you to test processes while
    you work in parallel to figure out then how would you integrate
    technologies. It could stand alone. Because you are talking
    about public comments, not something that involves private
    information--and, by the way, you can use AI to filter out any
    private information or Social Security numbers that someone
    does accidentally type in. That is something fairly easy to do.
    That would be something relatively quickly to stand up as a
    pilot without worrying about integration with back-end systems.
        Chairwoman Bice. I think that is the end of the questions
    that I have at the moment.
        Mrs. Torres, would you like to----
        Mrs. Torres. Yes, just----
        Chairwoman Bice. I recognize Mrs. Torres----
        Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I just want to do a follow-up.
        Is 6 years too long to give someone an opportunity to
    improve their systems? How do we get feedback from the actual
    users? Are we constantly requesting that input from the users
    so that we are improving systems or ensuring that our vendors
    are meeting the moment or the contract?
        Mr. Ward. Yes, absolutely. I think that with this--what the
    CAO is doing is trying to be more and more engaged with staff
    and users of these services to constantly learn. What we are
    proposing is a response to that, to bring more options and more
    flexibility and more capability.
        Mrs. Torres. Yes. I just want to ensure that we are
    constantly asking for input from the users to ensure that we
    are utilizing the best applications out there for our needs.
        Everything that was said today sounds wonderful. We are
    really moving into a new digital world that would help us be a
    bit more responsive to our constituents. All of that is only as
    good as the internet services that service our communities
    could withstand. I can tell you that I chose the location of my
    district office to be directly across from an international
    airport thinking, you know, it would be a great place to have
    the best WiFi and the best internet services in this suburb.
    Unfortunately, that is not the case and, you know, we are
    constantly having to deal with a 3- or 4-minute delay just to
    send an email from one--from the D.C. office to the district
    office.
        I just want to remind my colleagues that investing in the
    infrastructure across America, especially for, you know, to
    meet that--to close that digital divide is so critically
    important. Suburbs as well as, you know, States that are very
    rural I think deserve to have an opportunity to also hear from
    their Representatives.
        With that, I yield back to the Chair. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Torres.
        I want to thank the panelists for joining us, for having
    this important conversation. I think you have given us a lot to
    think about as we are looking to continue to innovate within
    the House infrastructure and provide the best possible
    constituent engagement that we can, keeping in mind that
    technology changes rapidly. There are certain limitations and
    challenges that we have, including the cybersecurity piece of
    this. There is a lot of innovation happening right now and
    incredible opportunity for us to be able to leverage and
    utilize that because, after all, this is the people's House.
        With that, this Subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]